Talk:Noah's Ark

Archives
Archive 1: March 2004 - February 2006 Archive 2: February 2006 - April 12 Archive 3: April 12, 2006 - December 31, 2006 Archive 4: December 30, 2006 - February 13, 2007 Archive 5: Feb 13, 2007 -

New section proposal

The following is my revised suggestion for a section entitled 'The Ark In Current Christian Interpretation'. It includes notable Biblical Literalist and Fundamentalist Interpretations, notable non-literalist and liberal interpretations, notable discussions over historicity, and the search for the Ark.

The Ark In Current Christian Interpretation

The Genesis Ark narrative continues to hold a significant place within the Christian community, though there exists a broad spectrum of interpretations of the narrative (from literal to allegorical), as with the Genesis creation account.

Biblical Literalist and Fundamentalist Interpretations

Biblical literalists and Fundamentalists tend to trust in traditions regarding the composition of the Bible and generally accept the traditional belief that the Ark narrative was written by Moses some time between the 16th century BC and late 13th century BC and describes a real event which took place in the 4th or 3rd millennium before Christ.

Biblical literalists explain apparent contradiction in the Ark narrative as the result of the stylistic conventions adopted by an ancient text: thus the confusion over whether Noah took seven pairs or only one pair of each clean animal into the Ark is explained as resulting from the author (Moses) first introducing the subject in general terms—seven pairs of clean animals—and then later, with much repetition, specifying that these animals entered the Ark in twos. Literalists see nothing puzzling in the reference to a raven flying over the Flood for two weeks—it could have rested on carrion floating on the waters—nor do they see any sign of alternative endings.

Liberal and Non-Fundamentalist Interpretations

Non-Fundamentalist and Liberal Christians typically view the Ark and flood narrative very differently to Biblical literalists and Fundamentalists. As early as the 19th century the view that the flood was merely local and did not cover the earth was well established within mainstream Christianity. This interpretation remains popular and important among more liberal Christians who retain a belief in the historicity of the Ark and the flood narrative as it is commonly used to explain how the Ark could have carried all the animal life necessary, and how it could have survived the flood itself.

Doublets and apparent contradictions in the text are typically explained by non-Fundamentalist Christians as the product of standard Hebrew literary forms., whilst the sending of the raven and dove are understood as historical references to authentic ancient nautical practice.

More liberal Christians such as the Universalist Church see the Ark narrative as essentially allegorical and non-historical.

Historicity

Apart from questions of date, authorship, and textual integrity, a number of subjects concerning the historicity of the Ark narrative are typically debated among Christians and skeptics. The following section sets out some of the more commonly discussed topics:

• Seaworthiness: Biblical literalist Websites seem to agree that the Ark was approximately 450 feet (137 m) long. This is considerably larger than the schooner Wyoming, at 329 feet the largest timber-hulled vessel built in modern times. The Wyoming and similar ships of her class suffered chronic leaking, warping, and hull separation due to hogging and sagging, despite reinforcement with iron bracing. "The construction and use histories of these [i.e. modern timber-hulled] ships indicated that they were already pushing or had exceeded the practical limits for the size of wooden ships". In response to the claim that the Ark had to be seaworthy, literalist websites cite various studies which, in their view, indicate that Noah's Ark was seaworthy, including a Korean paper demonstrating that the dimensions, shape, and structural materials of the Ark are realistic and that the Ark 'had a superior level of safety in high winds and waves compared with the other hull forms studied'. In this regard, some literalist apologists cite the Chinese Ming Dynasty 'Treasure ships', or 'baochuan' (the largest of which are claimed to be 400 to 600 ft long), as examples of large seagoing wooden vessels: however, the actual size of these ships is disputed, and one explanation for their size is that the largest Treasure Ships were merely used by the Emperor and imperial bureaucrats to travel along the relatively calm Yangtze river. Non-Fundamentalist apologists claim that the Flood was merely a local phenomenon confined to Mesopotamia, and hence the Ark would not have needed to survive wave action on a worldwide ocean.

• Practicality: Could the Ark have been contructed from timber as described in the Genesis narrative, and still supported its own weight?Were the technology and materials available to Noah to make the Ark's construction possible? Ark-believers claim that there is ample evidence for ancient timber vessels comparable in size and construction to the Ark: Sir Walter Raleigh was among the first to argue that the Ark was smaller than the Syracusia, a cargo ship built in the 3rd century BCE during the reign of Hiero II of Syracuse (180 feet in length), and the giant warship Tessarakonteres built by Ptolemy IV Philopater. The Tessarakonteres (420 feet long, and recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities, remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Flood-apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals. Other ancient ships commonly used as points of comparison by modern Ark apologists are the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut (206-311 ft), the Thalamegos (377 ft), Caligula's Giant Ship (341 ft), and Caligula's Nemi Ships (229 ft), the historicity of which is accepted by standard historical authorities.

• Capacity and logistics: According to Ark dimensions commonly accepted by Biblical literalists, the Ark would have had a gross volume of about 1.5 million cubic feet (40,000 m³), a displacement a little less than half that of the Titanic at about 22,000 tons, and total floor space of around 100,000 square feet (9,300 m²). The question of whether it could have carried two (or more) specimens of the various species (including those now extinct), plus food and fresh water, is a matter of much debate, even bitter dispute, between Biblical literalists and their opponents. While some Biblical literalists hold that the Ark could have held all known species, a more common position today is that the Ark contained "kinds" rather than species—for instance, a male and female of the cat "kind" rather than representatives of tigers, lions, cougars, etc. The many questions associated with a Biblical literalist interpretation include whether eight humans could have cared for the animals while also sailing the Ark, how the special dietary needs of some of the more exotic animals could have been catered for, how the creatures could have been prevented from preying on each other, questions of lighting, ventilation, and temperature control, hibernation, the survival and germination of seeds, the position of freshwater and saltwater fish, the question of what the animals would have eaten immediately after leaving the Ark, how they traveled (or were gathered) from all over the world to board the Ark and how they could have returned to their far-flung habitats across the Earth's bare, flood-devastated terrain, and how two or a few members of a species could have provided enough genetic variety to avoid inbreeding and reconstitute a healthy population. The numerous Biblical literalist websites, while agreeing that none of these problems is insurmountable, give varying answers on how to resolve them.

Edit wars, Christion POV (with the expected capitalization) vs.irreligious POV (no cap either expected or provided)

Never the twain shall meet, it seems. Perhaps this article, and perhaps all articles touching on topics of religious sensitivy (Christianaty in its various flavors, Islam, Hindu, Shinto, Wicca, Rasta, Scientology, whatever) should have links at the top of the article to fork off to various religiously-oriented POV versions.

No, I'm not serious about that but, in the words of that American philosopher Rodney King, "Can't we all just get along?" -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Was that directed at me? My issue is more that attempting to make a mythological story more like "proven historical fact": that is a problem. Some stories are never going to be able to be proven/disproven and have a lot of unlikely/contradictory/nonsensical stuff in them: they need to be marked as mythology, plain and simple. From our beloved wikipedia "meaning "a story-telling, a legendary lore". If that's in dispute then I'll back out the changes (and go remove the page Christian mythology as well as Jewish mythology, Greek mythology,Islamic mythology etc). NathanLee (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was directed at you NathanLee - just a general comment by a user who feels tired of feuding. The article is currently in the hands of a single editor, a Creationist who won't admit that he is one, not even to himself, but who makes sure that only his views prevail.The rest of us have just given up. PiCo (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a familiar story, but I don't think your approach of tiptoeing around the issue (e.g. let's not mention it and keep 'em happy) will fix anything. We can't have one rule for non-Christian/Judaic religions and another for the rest (including historical ones). It's not the most egalitarian approach to regard the stuff the ancient Greeks, Egyptians etc believed in as mythology and what the Christians believe as "fact". They're all stories which may have meaning, but still at the end of the day: stories. NathanLee (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The distinction you fail to appreciate is that Christianity, Islam and Buddhism are all significant enough world viewpoints to have sovereign countries that officially subscribe to each of them. (See State religion). Hinduism, Judaism, and Mormonism are also significant world viewpoints, which is the first thing i learned in Comparative Religions class. Perhaps where you are these worldviews are not so significant, but if you will look a little past your own nose, you may see that there are actually a host of other significant povs in the world, beside those who share your own, held by real people who do not choose to call their beliefs "mythology". By contrast, there are no significant povs in the world today who dispute that the extinct religions are "mythology". Insofar that one of the most popular definitions of mythology is "an extinct religion". It's a little premature to call any of today's World religions "extinct" or even to imply this by stating they simply ARE "mythology" as if nobody disagreed. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Argument from "Sovereign countries that officially subscribe to them" is a non-argument (variation of the fallacious "argument from authority"). Strength in numbers does nothing to change whether something is mythology or not, nor does it have any impact on the truth of said mythology. You're citing "don't offend my beliefs" as your other reason: I'll refer you again to the Mohammed picture. If it's a matter of scale and passion: pictures of the prophet mohammed ended up in massive riots and many people dead. Some people choose to call electricity "witchcraft", factual matter is that it isn't witchcraft. Do you have a reference to "mythology" as "an extinct religion"?

I'll point you to mythology here on wikipedia. "From the greek: μυθολογία mythología, meaning "a story-telling, a legendary lore") refers to a body of folklore/myths/legends that a particular culture believes to be true and that often use the supernatural to interpret natural events and to explain the nature of the universe and humanity."

Encyclopaedia brittanica seems to think it belongs in that category.

Historically the earth being flat was a "significant world view". That doesn't make it any more or less valid (or else all urban legends would be true), nor should we attempt to portray it as anything other than an early view of things.

I suggest if you're offended by the use of this appropriate term for an ancient parable/tale/story: your view is somewhat clouded and you should perhaps refrain from reverting other people's improvements to the article. No one is trying to attack your beliefs by stating this is folklore/mythology. NathanLee (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Strength in numbers of course does not establish that a POV is correct, but it certainly does establish it as "significant POV" according to the NPOV policy. btw If pictures of the prophet Mohammed resulted in massive riots and deaths, I'd seriously consider respecting their POV and refrain from offending it by putting up gratuitous pictures of him, but that must be where you and I are different. We can usually find more neutral wordings for sensitive issues like these on most articles, (for example if mythology supposedly is used to mean "sacred narrative", just say "sacred narrative": it's clearer, less ambiguous and less inflammatory) but here now there seems to be resistance to more neutral compromise wording on the part of one POV that does not care if another POV is offended, not a good mix at all for a solution. And I have been editing this article for 3 years, thank you. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, you cited the wikipedia definition of mythology as it was revised, but please check the very earliest versions of the article mythology. For a very long time, the article included "fictional" as part of its definition, as most readers still do. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Significant POV is one thing: altering the article to make it sound factual to suit that POV while treating identical articles/topics elsewhere (with less CURRENT numbers of followers) is wrong. You would succumb to censorship and bullying (or seek to impose that): I'm more of a free speech and facts kinda guy myself. In this case no-one is at any risk of getting killed. Putting this up as mythology will only offend those too sensitive about their beliefs or too stupid to know what the meaning of "mythology" is, or how it would be hypocritical to call greek creation stories from ancient times "Greek mythology" while demanding that Christian creation stories from ancient times do not use the same term.

For consistency with the pages Christian mythology, mythology, Deluge (mythology) : this page should mention that this is mythology.

For three years of editing this page: so perhaps it's time you let someone else have a go (in the spirit of wikipedia) as you seem to have missed things, maybe have the blinkers on a bit too long and you're preventing people like myself from contributing to the consistency of the project by adding a few words.

Maybe if you answer a few questions we can nail this one down:

• Do you agree that this is a piece of Christian, jewish or Islamic mythology?
• Is this not what could fairly be called the arahamic religions' version of the "flood story" or "deluge story"?
• As you're convinced mythology is such an offensive term: should we be deleting Christian mythology, Hindu mythology and Islamic mythology? And while we're at it: how about a block on condoms and birth control lest we have any strict catholics floating around the site. Consistency is all I'm arguing for.

"most readers still do": I'm glad you're so in tune with the masses, care to supply a reference? I'm supplying plenty of links to pages where this page is referenced as exactly what I tried to add to this page. Your view is getting more and more niche the longer you go on without any references. NathanLee (talk) 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not aware of anyone arguing that condoms and birth control be blocked from wikipedia, or any riots going on over it. I can see the connection of this topic with what everyone agrees is mythology, so the cats are understandable, and in fact could better apply to the entire Category:Noah's Ark and not just this one article. But it has proven inflammatory when used in many articles, so we have to draw the line at not telling readers what to believe and not believe, or declaring any significant faith's scriptures false or fictitious or even mythology. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's try again..

• Do you agree that this is a piece of Christian, jewish or Islamic mythology?
• Is this not what could fairly be called the arahamic religions' version of the "flood story" or "deluge story"?
• As you're convinced mythology is such an offensive term: should we be deleting Christian mythology, Hindu mythology and Islamic mythology?

Thanks, NathanLee (talk) 20:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you might group christian beliefs with Greek mythology, neither can really be proved with factual evidence. But why can't we find middle ground? Wikipedia is supposed to be constantly expanding, why don't you make a "christian mythology portal", or expand the existing one. But why is this debate on Christian belief necessary?

There is no such thing as a truly neutral oppinion, to exist is to have an oppinion. Therefor, the only oppinion that is truly neutral is no oppinion at all. So instead of continuing this debate where it becomes increasingly obvious that neither party is willing to give ground, let us simply agree to disagree and leave eachother's beliefs, views, and or oppinions alone. There is a difference between mythology and religion, to some it may be psychological , but it exists. --Michael_Johnson (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute by Til Eulenspiegel

So TE: do you have any reasons for your tagging the article (as you have used your 3 reverts up). I've asked above some specific questions about the particulars of your dispute about this STORY in the bible as falling under the banner of mythology. Here they are again:

• Do you agree that this is a piece of Christian, jewish or Islamic mythology?
• Is this not what could fairly be called the arahamic religions' version of the "flood story" or "deluge story"?
• As you're convinced mythology is such an offensive term: should we be deleting Christian mythology, Hindu mythology and Islamic mythology?

I think first of all you're assuming that if a story in the bible is called a "mythology" then it is attacking the bible or attempting to deeply offend. Not understanding the accepted use of a word is not an excuse for offence. There are so many religions which share this flood mythology, see Deluge (mythology), it is strange that this one is magically outside that grouping. NathanLee (talk) 13:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Also: Inca mythology, Muisca mythology, Maya mythology, Arabian mythology etc etc.. There's a large list of groups that have held beliefs from ancient times which also fall under this category. NathanLee (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The obvious answer is to start an RfC on the matter. I'm just a hair's breadth from recommending this entire incident to WP:LAME. For the record, I prefer Til's (i.e., the original) version of the lead, despite agreeing with many of your points. But I honestly don't care all that much. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 13:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is, of course, an article dealing with a mythological topic. It is a Hebrew flood myth, as recorded in Genesis. The myth has secondarily entered "Abrahamic" traditions, and accounts in later sources such as the Quran, Christian iconography etc. should be treated separately, as elaborations on the original myth. --dab (��) 14:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

looking over the article, it devotes far too much space to fundamentalist/crackpot theories about the ark. This sort of stuff should be strictly restricted to topics of "flood archaeology". Its presence here violates WP:DUE. --dab (��) 14:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Again for the record, you have now settled on a wording that I am comfortable with. I suspect it will last about 5 minutes ;-). I had the same impression as well. I think a more constructive direction of discussion for this article would be to try to trim out some of the excess bits connected with historicity (such as the inordinate amount of space spent discussing what the "actual" dimensions of the ark were, and so forth). Not enough of the article is spent on the cultural implications of the story. Until I added a wikilink just a few days ago, the article barely mentioned the Noahide covenant which is, apparently, the single most important thing emerging out of the Noah story for Jewish tradition. At least a section needs to be written on this, and then the importance in various other traditions, such as Christianity and Islam, can be dealt with as they are now. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this dispute is pathetic, but going to RFC when the person with the issue can't respond to some simple questions that might help resolve this thing is a waste of everyone's time. I've laid out why I think it is labelled mythology, a bunch of people agree, the article is in categories for jewish, christian, islamic mythology: So why are we putting up with one person with a bizarre allergy to a word in widespread use to describe exactly this type of story..? NathanLee (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It should go to RFC. Past attempts to label most of the entire Bible as "mythology" including even the Resurrection of Jesus, have always met with failure, even though similar arguments may have been used; it is regarded as forcing a point-of-view on the article and telling readers what not to believe; articles pertaining to many other religions here on wikipedia are fairly neutral as far as letting the readers make up their own minds, but the very same arguments you used here, could be used to introduce blatantly biased language into numerous other religion-based articles, for many other religions; we should not get in the business of deciding which religions beliefs to attack or antagonize with ambiguous language, and which ones to describe neutrally, or it will never end. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not how wikipedia works, RFC is not for single person being a recalcitrant style issues. In this case we have you with your questionable definition of a commonly used term and under the mistaken idea that to label one of the stories in the bible as mythology automatically means more than just that.

RFC is not the process for dealing with one person's hangups. WHEN or IF the hoards of mortally offended christians descend upon the page, how about we deal with them the same way the Mohammed page deals with complaints about the pictures of him. Or using his name without the (peace be upon him). If you can tell me how we can have decided that in the interests of accuracy and information to offend one overly sensitive religious mob but one word here seems to send you into a rage and thus it needs to change or go to RFC. Explain to me how "may possibly offend some christians" is not permitted, but "will offend some muslims" is. This is an even more niche set of criteria with which to be offended by. NathanLee (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that you are editing wikipedia with an agenda of forcing your pov and your own personal beliefs down everyone else's throat, and I intend to take every means necessary to avoid your ad hominem attempts to single me out as if I were the only person in the world who recognises what you are doing. It is the same thing the Soviets tried to do for 70 years, and once wind of your pov pushing gets around, there will be a much greater uproar over your picking and choosing what widely held beliefs to attack and be hostile to, and what beliefs to describe neutrally. The whole concept of "neutrality" is just too much for people like you, you want to use every trick in the book to declare the discussion closed immediately without going through due process for dispute resolution, all my good faith with you has gone out the window, you are just so convinced that only your POV on religion telling people what to believe in, is the only valid one. You have expressed your personal mirth that hordes of offended Muslims have staged deadly riots because their religion was offended, and your stated goal now seems to be to offend Christians to the greatest extent possible. What arrogance and contempt for neutrality. I insist that this be taken to mediation and arbitration now, because you are attacking a major religion in a way that upsets the balance of neutrality. Please look up the definition of the words magisterial and dogmatical while you are at it. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Do you dispute what I say about how the RFC process is supposed to work? E.g. You went to three reverts without discussing anything on here and have repeatedly gone off on random arguments rather than answer some simple questions above that I'm trying to get your view so we can resolve this. Where was your assumption of good faith anyhow? In your attack: I'm surprised you didn't drag out some nazi comparisons or something, get over trying to act all oppressed because someone wants this article to be accurately worded rather than reading like a factual historical piece on a religious story of mythical sort. On here, this is just another flood story to go with the hundreds of others listed on Deluge (mythology) page. You seem to want this one labelled differently to all the others. Why? Because it's to do with Christianity? Why one rule for mulsims and zeus worshippers, pagans etc and another for Christians?

I've asked a few simple questions of you personally MULTIPLE times to try and get what the hell your issue is with a term that is in widespread use across all sorts of similar pages, why your "mainstream views.. no offence to them" type approach isn't valid (see mohammed page), why we need consistency: e.g. we have "greek mythology", "xyz mythology" etc but have an exclusion for this piece of Christian mythology or Jewish mythology. We have a box that describes what "mythology" means for people who, like you, don't know the meaning of the word as applied in this encyclopaedia.

Here are some more definitions via google that were pretty easy to find: [1], try any and all of these definitions here. Any that don't apply here? Instead of dogmatically etc, try starting with mythology, myth etc. You need look no further than wikipedia if you like.

You can deny that the word "mythology" applies to this story of ancient, most likely unverifiable, possibly true or false, religiously significant story nature. How this one word is attacking a major religion or telling someone what to believe in I don't know. People believe in a bit of mythology or they don't. You can get the factual sounding POV by reading the bible: an encyclopaedia isn't a place to lend extra validation to mythical stories. NathanLee (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a basic problem here that this is an example of specialists in field using a word in a different way that it's used in ordinary speech without any warning about what is meant. It would a bit like a physicist dropping a word like charm or flavor without any warning that the words are being used in a physics sense, or a lawyer talking about service or prayer without any warning that the words are being used in a legal sense. It would be a particular problem in a context where the words might sensibly be interpreted either way. In this case, it would be helpful to supply the additional information that a term is being used in its specialized rather than its general-English sense and perhaps explain what the specialized definition is and what kind of people use it. One could argue that such clarification isn't necessary. There can certainly be debates on which meaning is the "ordinary" one in some cases, it may depend on ones community and culture. But even where these matters are disputable, it doesn't seem to me that adding clarity results in harm. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And the lead is now a God-awful mess. PiCo (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I had added the myth box which clarified this, but it was removed. That should have been sufficient, and the fact that there is a myth box for this specific purpose should lend weight to it being an acceptable word. But the inability of people to read that before reverting under some misconception that it was an attack on a whole religion. NathanLee (talk) 22:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

POV concerns

This article is becoming a one sided POV travesty, let us restore neutrral balance and compromise wording instead of being deliberately inflammatiry

This sentence:

Predecessors of the Hebrew myth are the Sumerian Eridu Genesis, where Enki instructs Ziusudra to build a large boat. After a flood of seven days, Zi-ud-sura makes appropriate sacrifices and prostrations to Anu (sky-god) and Enlil (chief of the gods), and is given eternal life in Dilmun by Anu and Enlil.

contradicts several significant povs. Are you now again disputing that creationist pov is relevant and significant? You seem to be saying that these people do not count because you have decided on the readers' behalf that they are simply wrong. However it is easy to cite many sources who disagree with this statement because they feel the Ark actually existed, and therefore the Sumerian myths are just a distorted memory of an actual event. In order to be neutral, you must back up this statement by writing "According to ___, " instead of stating this to be a fact. Just look at what the Ethiopian Orthodox Church states about it, for one, among many other significant organizations, but this POV is unacceptably polemic and antagonistic against them. It's supposed to be easy to find a neutral wording in article intros that keeps everybody happy, but this ain't it, and I am more than prepared to take this to mediation and arbitration, because you cannot pick and choose religions or parts of religions, and tell the readers that all of their cherished beliefs are really "mythology", the exact same mistake the Soviets made. Please have a conscience and stop using wikipedia as a propaganda platform to push your own POV on others, because most people who do believe this, do not want some snooty POV of some editor or editors, dictating to them that they believe in mythology.

You also seem to be arguing that Christian Churches are not allowed to have a significant pov on how to interpret their own scriptures, and that we must instead rely solely on those who say it is only "mythology" to interpret it for us. How can this attitude be neutral? I for one am totally sick of these scholars telling the Church how they must interpret their own scripture, as if what the Churches themselves say on the subject is irrelevant and FRINGE. Neutrality demands better than this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you don't have any awareness of religion outside christianity: but take a look at the Deluge (mythology) page and maybe you'll see a bit wider context of why your protests are a little over sensitive. There are TONNES of examples of similar stories, if you read more than just the bible you'd know that. There's a very real POV that this story about Noah is complete bulls**t: are you happy for that to be included? I'm not proposing that but your insistence that your sensibilities about this being anything other than factual be pandered to is getting a bit tiring.

The article rambles on about very obscure and completely discredited by science theories. It's mythology, yes people believe it, if you insist science can't be trusted on religious matters: it's never going to be disprovable. People believe a lot of weird stuff: that doesn't mean the nature of the thing is changed. Flat Earth theory is an early, incorrect and discredited model of the universe. Because people believe it still doesn't mean we have to treat the topic of modern astronomy with kid gloves.

BTW: Still awaiting your answers to some questions above that will help to get your views on things. Any reason you can't answer them to help resolve this? NathanLee (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with any pov being included as long as it is properly attributed to the source per NPOV. You are making a lot of pre-judgements about my familiarity with comparative religion that are once again stereotypes. I have studied the sacred narratives of many faiths and as my discussions I have already had with you above last week should show I am opposed to wikipedia telling any of their followers that their beliefs are mythology. Neutral wordings require terms that are less ambiguous; unfortunately mythology is very ambiguous because one of its most common definitions is decidedly "fictional". You are seriously mistaken if you think I am arguing that we state the Churches' viewpoints are the correct ones. I'm only pleading, once again, that the various Churches' various published opinions about their own scriptures not be dismissed as "irrelevant" or "fringe", and that the article not dictate only other opinions than these; and that a balance be struck between the various povs, since it is not neutral to declare one pov "correct" and the opposing one "insignificant" when it is not. I also consider the opinions of other religions' organizations about their own scriptures to be equally significant povs, and oppose wikipedia taking a hostile, non-neutral stance toward any of them. Just lay out the citable facts neutrally, readers can decide for themselves what to believe in or what faith to follow, without telling them what to believe or not believe.

Also your analogy of the Flat Earth is childish, since it is not anywhere as significant a viewpoint as the groups that say they believe in Genesis; the numbers of people who believe in a flat earth are actually infinitessimally small. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well the article as it currently stands certainly buries the fact that "Modern science completely refutes this version of events" pretty well AND doesn't clearly label the nature of this story. I think your desires to remove a word that you regard as hostile are a bit of a fringe idea, although perhaps stems from a desire to get neutrality. Like it or not: this story is part of a set of creation mythology, namely the jewish/christian/islamic version of a flood myth. In scientific terms this global flood myth is one which leans very much in the "did not happen" type of myth rather than the "we don't know one way or another". Sure, people had a small view of the world back then, but genetically we (and the animal kingdom) did not reduce down to two pairs of each just as the adam and eve concept just doesn't work.

The article lists crackpot unverified "made up" stuff in incredible detail and quantity, so you've got no concerns that some believer version of events isn't getting its place in the article (how many thousand years and still no one has found the ark?? Yet still hope survives! Quite a lot of it if you read this article..). If you want to provide a link to the church's current views on the term mythology: great, but you're acting as though that needs to be the primary POV and enforced in wikipedia editing styles. Time to adhere to the "separation of church and encyclopaedia". :) On the flat Earth idea: the flat earth society has the POV that they are correct, that doesn't mean we can't use the terms "completely disproved by science" in an article on that topic. That you've decided that numbers make a difference, well my take is that numbers are irrelevant if you consider time. We can't be editing with a "right now" viewpoint if we expect pages to ever stabilise. In a thousand years if christianity joins the other religions that have come and gone: does the treatment of the story of Noah's ark have to be re-adjusted significantly?

I could probably find a large number of geologists, biologists and historians who can take offence at the fact that this ISN'T clearly labelled as mythology, they have rational reasons for this view point. Religious ones stem from "because the bible says so" or "because people believe". They're hardly equal basis for saying something. One can cite scientific findings in one case, the other just has argument from authority or argument to the masses (fallacious arguments). While I respect your attempt to find neutral ground, that isn't always possible particularly in matters of faith vs science. If you want religious stories presented as if they were factual: there's always the religious texts themselves, an encyclopaedia is going to be quite different. NathanLee (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I just want to point out that this page isn't here to debate the truth of the matter or convince anyone else. NathanLee, your arguments seem to be entirely in the nature of a claim that the point of view is false, plus you seem to find it disagreeable. But the truth of a point of view, and whether you presonally find it agreeable is simply irrelevant to its significance. You don't seem to have presented any argument that actually addresses the significance issue. I think neutrality and and factual accuracy could be maintained here by using language in the nature of "anthropologists generally characterize it as a myth." and citing anthropologists who do so. The community recently voted to delete a "BibleAsFact" template, see the discussion. Our encyclopedia is different from most encyclopedias in the world because of its emphasis on neutrality, and this applies even in matters of disputes between religous and scientific viewpoints. We can certainly report that scientific consensus is currently against the narrative being a literally true account, and it's really basically a language and attribution issue. We might for example say that certain scholarly disciplines generally characterize it as a myth anc find it similar it to other narratives, rather than saying it is a myth or that it is similar to other narratives. We can only report what people say. Although I think the neutrality policy warrants being careful with language, this is not to say that religious viewpoints get carte blanche, and some content added about what contemporary people in religious communities say about the topic may well be excessive. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Religion articles of this sort represent a difficulty in how to neutrally represent different viewpoints reflecting different subjects. Imagine if editors on the United States currency article insisted on basing the article solely on research by paper scientists who found its paper content similar to various other kinds of paper, and based on that research, objected to points of view characterizing it as having some sort of special value or regarding it as something in nature other than a class of paper, on grounds that the paper-science research had refuted and debunked other viewpoints, and had proven them to be unscientific and hence not worthy of inclusion. Clearly the paper-science point of view would be one relevant point of view, but not the only relevant point of view, and not necessarily the sole basis of classification, or the only or most appropriate thing to emphasize in introducing the subject. I think this situation is similar. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Shirahadasha you obviously haven't read my arguments at all, what I'm saying is listed above if you want to read it. In short: the argument that using a term that's applied across many other pages and which has a definition which does NOT make any claims about truth or lack thereof. The argument AGAINST using the term mythology is that because some people currently believe in the religion we can't use it because it might be offensive to some niche group. Anyhow, if you wish to see the arguments I put forward including the example of putting up a picture of mohammed. My argument on this has zero to do with how ridiculous or not the story is or my views on it. NathanLee (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I've read your arguments I don't agree with many of them. The facts here are the narrative. Everything else is context. The viewpoints you rely on place the narrative in a particular context, other viewpoints place it in a different context. "Flood myth" is a category created by folklorists. Folklorists place this narrative in that category as part of the context they give it. We can report the fact that they do this, as well as their explanation of why they do so. We can report the context each view places the narrative in, in whatever detail we want. But whose context is the "real" context is not for us to say. I don't think anybody's context should be reported as absolute fact. I've supported minimizing or deleting content on "archaeologists" with no scientific credentials who've claimed to have discovered remnants of the ark and similar content various people have attempted to add. But I also support the view that the particular context the academic community places the narrative in cannot be presented as the factual or real context or the only context the narrative has or can have. Various religious views have regarded the narrative as having historical, allegorical, and/or theological meaning, we report that they believe that and why. Various academic views have placed the narrative in the context of ancient near eastern flood myths, we report what they say and why. But in the introduction, my view is that we should simply report that it is a narrative in the Bible and briefly mention the context both views have placed it in without putting either context in narrative voice or presenting it as the "real" context. Religious views see it as containing a sacred truth whose nature depends on the particular religous perspective; academics generally see it as containing a false myth. Neither statement should be presented as fact. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Well said. Just one point though: academics don't regard myth as 'false' - that's the popular meaning, but it's not valid for the academic study of myth, any more than 'true' and 'false' can be applied in literary studies (Shakespeare's Macbeth isn't a true history of medieval Scotland, but it isn't false, either).PiCo (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I've taken this on board and re-worded the start to put more emphasis on making context clear and detached narrative of the story. I think the page was a bit confused about whether it was talking about the ark itself or the story of the ark. Think it is more appropriate/useful to talk of the whole story as we've no ark to look at or any other account other than as part of the story. What do you think? Used more neutral (I think) way of dealing with the description of the god in the story (e.g. acknowledging that this is a story of a god or deity directing a man, flooding etc.. Rather than just "the god" which is from the assumption that there's only one god we could be talking about). In the narrative part I wonder if that particular mention of god should link to Yahweh? NathanLee (talk) 10:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The tension between ark-as-narrative and ark-as-artifact is exactly what lies at the centre of the problems we have with this article. Personally I approach it as narrative. Shira and Til and others approach it as religious history. The only way to get a text agreeable to everyone is to respect (underline that word) the viewpoints of everyone involved - and respect begins with understanding and accepting. Many - almost all - of our editors are honourable, decent people, willing to accept the point pf view of their colleagues - Til, in fact, I've always found to be exemplary in that regard. He's merely asking that we extend the same respect to him. PiCo (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Top-of-the-head: perhaps the article can divide into two main sections something like ark-as-narrative and ark-as-artifact (headed with better titles). If one of those two sections overwhelms the other, perhaps smaller summary-style articles can be forked off. That'll be inconvenient for POV-pushers, though. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty strong preference against such POV forks, every contentious article would end up with a hundred forked articles. But sections.. Well.. :) Is there much info on the ark without the context of the narrative? NathanLee (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Islamic tradition

The Islamic tradition section has a lot of excellent material, but it's getting rather long. How about we hive it off as a separate article, "Noah's Ark (Islamic tradition)", with a shorter summary of just 2 or 3 paragraphs here? I'm aware that we shouldn't produce pov forks, but I don't see this as such a fork - there's no pov involved, it's simply a set of fascinating traditions which is long enough to form it's own article. PiCo (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I startd incorporating it into this article (including the islamic naming Nuh's ark) as it is the same story and feely admits that it takes the same roots as the jewish and then christian ones. If we're going to do that then it starts getting tricky: which one is the primary one? How do we separate jewish/christian viewpoints on the story too?

Ideally I'd think we can cover all bases by making it a bit more generic and beef up the islamic discussion a bit (I suspect this article is just suffering the "western world" viewpoint a bit, which was why I did a bit of reading up on the islamic side. My concern with splitting it up would be the vast amount of overlap? I think there's probably room in this article if we re-factor the page a bit and reduce all the rambling and entirely speculative material about its existence. NathanLee (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting Documentary Hypothesis section

I have made a comprehensive re-write of the "Documentary Hypothesis" section, retitling it "The Ark and the Higher Criticism". I was unsatisfied with the section as it stood because it was little more than a summary of one theory of the composition of the Ark story - a theory which actually is probably held by a minority of scholars today, if a substantial one (although I doubt that there are any figures on this). My re-write focuses more on the Ark story itself, and its importance in the development of secular biblical scholarship in the 19th century - this, I think, is more appropriate than a simple re-hash of the Documentary Hypothesis. Anyway, open to comment. PiCo (talk) 07:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Science needs a voice

The views of science are significant. On one hand you have a story from the bible, you then have in detail the view of more religious people who have made up elaborations on about how it would work.. But where's the science view that this story is impossible? I've put back in the referenced material, dunno why/how someone decides a writer for the BBC isn't a reliable source and nor can I see how "this is about the ark, not the flood" is really a possible reason. The ark and flood mythology are intertwined. You can't have one without the other. As for determinations about whether a journalist is qualified to write about Noah's ark: any of the religious references on this are a case of biblical scholars writing about logistics and engineering presumably without any expertise. The bible was written without knowledge of modern day geology/biology/geography/other science which completely refute the idea of a global flood, or the idea that genetically the human race reduced to the handful in the ark etc etc. That should be important enough to warrant a mention in the lead. NathanLee (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be completely false to say that science has "disproved" anything whatsoever in relation to this story. There may be prevalent, or favored, hypotheses. But hypotheses and "proof" are two vastly different things, as any scientist well knows. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

They may not have to you, but within the scientific community there's no "debate" amongst geologists. It's so incredibly niche and unscientific.. There are peer reviewed papers covering millions of years of geological events, they must all be missing the "global total flood event" that this story talks of. Do you know of any respected geological findings? e.g. ones not from biblical organisations perhaps?

Let's talk references: "unequivocally rejected" I believe is the term used in one of the articles I had to put back in as they were deleted. "psuedoscience" the other one said. Are you suggesting that this is not the case?

I think you misunderstand how science works versus religion :) There's no current conflicting THEORY in science that there's been a global flood that wiped out all life. What you're talking about in scientific terms is "fantastic, unfounded, made up stuff" (e.g. not science).

How about instead of "prevalent or favoured" you take the definition: "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." [2] Which applies here.

The idea that there wasn't a global flood isn't something which is in the status of awaiting some outcome (indicating something which was believed by science to be true thanks to evidence, but which new evidence and resulting theories may replace it): there's just no evidence for it in science currently across multiple fields of science, thus it has never made it to "hypothesis". Here's what the USGS thinks happened in pretty pictures, take a look at the events/periods listed on Geological history of Earth or dig around one on berkeley's site. Compare to biblical timeline, which is a little different.

The idea you speak of has never originated via scientific means, so the moment science started building up its scientific findings and replacing inherited superstition and traditional stories, it has never had evidence of a global flood capable of wiping out all life on the planet. There have been floods, most certainly. But no covering of highest mountains and wiping out all but 2 of each species as far as science is concerned.

This reference sums up a lot of quotes from scientists, and talks about why the flood myth fell out of favour: [3]

I've read science textbooks, magazines, articles and papers over the years and I haven't come across any of them referring to "post world deluge" event, which would have had massive impact on the world had it happened as described in this story. Best that I can find is the idea that because of the extremely local view of the people back then: a flood event might have seemed like "the whole world", but it was not even close with humans continuing on with agriculture/civilisation etc. [4] [5]

It's like all stories from so long ago: the subject of much elaboration, mistranslation and exaggeration over the centuries. But the current claims as they sit in the bible if taken as anything approaching literal meaning: are at odds with science. And that's why it needs clear treatment of the scientific viewpoint on this story which makes claims about the history of the planet. NathanLee (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a page on Flood geology which addresses the issues. I've also taken a step towards addressing them here by combining all the "science and scholarship" sections into one, albeit it runs only up to the end of the 19th century. I'd have no objection to adding a very brief paragraph there about the impact of scientific geology on the contemporary understanding of the flood/ark story, but I'd like to see it kept very short in view of the existence of that other article. Til, does this sound acceptable to you? PiCo (talk) 09:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and was bold, added a para on how geology impacted popular approaches to the Ark story in the 19th century. The lead is still crap. PiCo (talk) 08:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course the Ark and the flood are connected. However, addressing in the article the historicity of the flood, or other issues relating to the flood, is off topic and may constitute WP:COAT. There is already a comprehensive article on flood geology in which science has 'a voice'. The 'science view that this story is impossible' is well represented in this article:

• 'By the 19th century, natural historians and other scientists no longer felt able to justify a literal interpretation of the Ark story'
• 'by the middle of the 18th century few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark narrative'
• 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'
• 'the odds are that the technology of the time and the reputed material (gopher wood or shittim wood = ?acacia) would have made such a structure too flimsy for the purpose'
• 'Many writers (e.g., Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysticism, Mayfield, 1990) point out that the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible'

I have no objection to the BBC link, but this article is about the Ark, so let's keep it that way. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My very limited understanding of claims of historicity is that the narrative may have been connected to a local flood in the Mideast, perhaps related to the Black Sea, which plausibly went from a smaller inland freshwater lake to a larger connected sea through a catastrophic event in the last ice age. I'm not aware of scientific support for, or serious suggestions of, a genuinely global flood after human beings appeared on the planet. I have supported a strictly neutral presentation of the introduction, but the scientific views section is a different matter. In my view the subject of this article is a Biblical narrative, just like Prodigal son. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, as long as the page is about the myth, its okay. If it strays into "The flood happened" territory, then it needs to be marked as the fringe view that it is with criticism, ect. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

As I keep telling people, there shouldn't be any talk about whether or not the flood happened here. The subject of this article is the Ark, not the flood. --Taiwan boi (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that! -- Boracay Bill (talk) 08:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

In view of what seems a pretty one-sided agreement here that the Flood shouldn't be introduced into this article, I've revised the lead to something like its original form. PiCo (talk) 06:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Extra to that: There's a short para in the third section (about changing attitudes to the Ark narrative after the Renaissance) which mentions the Flood in the context of the growth of geology as a science: I tried to keep it within the confines of 19th century knowledge about the age of the Earth and the consequences for Biblical chronology, and hence the Flood and Ark as history; I hope this makes it impossible for future contributors to wander off into their own views on whether the Flood was a real event. PiCo (talk) 06:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to somehow separate out the notion of a flood and the ark: you're into some strange territory. The ark and the flood are linked. There's no reason why the view of science that the flood described in this story did not happen should be excluded. That's not outside the realm of relevant information. Or, I'm happy to have it labelled mythology clearly.. But chopping out that this is clearly a mythological story AND removing science's view that this story did not happen: that's hardly fair to the overwhelming findings of science. It's like "here's a wild claim, which says X which depends on Y, but science has found no evidence of Y but because that's about part of the story: that's not allowed". NathanLee (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nathan, I am going to say this again, but I don't want to have to keep repeating myself. Of course the Ark and the flood are linked. However, separating them is not 'strange terrtory'. This article addresses the Ark. Addressing in the article the historicity of the flood, or other issues relating to the flood, is off topic and may constitute WP:COAT. There is already a comprehensive article on flood geology in which science has 'a voice'. As for scientific views on the Ark, they are well represented in this article:

• 'By the 19th century, natural historians and other scientists no longer felt able to justify a literal interpretation of the Ark story'
• 'by the middle of the 18th century few natural historians could justify a literal interpretation of the Noah's Ark narrative'
• 'It would have been about 450ft long, and experts say it would have broken apart'
• 'the odds are that the technology of the time and the reputed material (gopher wood or shittim wood = ?acacia) would have made such a structure too flimsy for the purpose'
• 'Many writers (e.g., Kenneth Feder, Frauds, Myths, and Mysticism, Mayfield, 1990) point out that the construction of the Ark, given the conditions stated in the Bible, would probably have been impossible'

If you are going to continue to try and insert material on the flood into this article, it will be thrown out. If you want to start contributing constructively to the article, please do so at any time. Otherwise find somewhere else to fool around. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And mentioning "Noah" or the bible or god or the church is also COAT by your definition. If you're opposed to having this classed as "flood mythology" and thus clearly stated that this is yet another flood myth: then it's kinda hard for people to see that it belongs in that group. The vast body of material in this article is about various religious viewpoints on the topic which are niche and purely speculation with zero basis(e.g. theories about the search, landing point, waste disposal etc) yet you can't spare a handful of words in the lead to make it very clear that there's no scientific basis or support for this idea? The lead should reflect the later information, which by your list above: a clear statement that summarises those points is perfectly suitable for inclusion in the lead. It doesn't have to be buried in the later text since it is a signification source of information on the topic at hand. NathanLee (talk) 08:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I see you still don't understand WP:COAT. Mentioning Noah, the Bible, or God or the church in the context of Noah's Ark is not WP:COAT. Trying to include in this article a discussion of Noah, the Bible, or God or the church in a context other than Noah's Ark would be WP:COAT. Trying to include in this article a discussion of the historicity of the flood or flood geology is WP:COAT. If you had read this talk page you would have seen that I have no objection to this article being listed under 'mythology' or 'flood mythology', and I have no objection to the 'Deluge (mythology)' article being linked to from this one. Of course the vast body of material in this article 'is about various religious viewpoints on the topic'. That's entirely appropriate. It's giving due weight to the religious viewpoints, which constitute by far the vast majority of material on the subject. Whether or not you think they are 'niche and purely speculation with zero basis' is utterly irrelevant to this fact. You're arguing against Wikipedia guidelines. The lead contains more than enough information on the scientific views of the Ark, and even on the flood itself (which isn't directly relevant). This article tends to be a lightning rod for raving atheists who appear amusingly fearful that the article lends credence to the historicity of the Ark and flood. At least their prejudices are easily exposed, so the article doesn't suffer from their personal agendas (we've even had atheists come here and claim the entire article should be deleted!). --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop WP:COAT

I have removed references to the flood as worldwide from the lead, since it skewed the introduction considerably. The lead already contains a statement that 'By the 19th century, scientists discounted a literal interpretation of the Ark story', which should satisfy even the most rabid spittle flecked atheist since it addresses specifically the Ark, which is the subject of the article, for those who are having difficulty reading. Trying to sneak in bits and pieces from the article on flood geology is WP:COAT. --Taiwan boi (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no reference for that statement is there? Leave the one that has actual references perhaps? I've renamed the "Deluge" as "mythological deluge" as to describe it as anything else would be making it more historical rather than mythological. Also: the bible describes the flood as a worldwide one, why would calling it a worldwide flood be inconsistent with that? NathanLee (talk) 08:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes there is a reference for that statement. The term 'Deluge' is already a recognized term for a variety of deluge myths (the article to which it is linked makes this clear). Your addition makes complete nonsense of the statement, as it now represents the flood narrative itself as saying that God wanted to save Noah from a 'mythological deluge'. This is lunacy. The flood narrative does not say that God wanted to save Noah from a mythological deluge. It says that God wanted to save Noah from the deluge. As for the Bible describing the flood as a worldwide one, that is a matter of interpretation. The earliest extant Jewish commentaries on the flood are by Philo and Josephus (1st century), and both of them interpret the flood as local. --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, so let's label the *story* as biblical mythology if you have issues. SOMEWHERE it has to make clear that this is mythology rather than accepted historic account. Yes, within the context of this mythical account it talks factually. The story is mythical, therefore any reference to the deluge ("A mythical global flood"). I'm pretty sure that interpretation is a bit naive and neglecting that this is the biblical account we're talking about (not some niche view you're plucking out of somewhere): why bother taking animals on board if it was just a local flood? Why the mention of covering everything.. Why the talk of wiping out all life? The idea of a typical Deluge in these sorts of tales is for angry gods/god to wipe out all life and start again. NathanLee (talk) 20:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, although you can say it is "sneaking in" articles: have you read the title of the article you keep removing? It's got "Noah's flood" in the title.. I think that qualifies it as addressing the story of Noah enough. NathanLee (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It qualifies as addressing Noah's flood, not the Ark. This article is about the Ark. The title of this article is intended to inform you of this. What are you missing? --Taiwan boi (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to the article that refers to Noah's flood that isn't part of the story of Noah's ark? This article is about the STORY of Noah, the ark, the flood etc, it can only be about that, for there is no ark outside the story on which to base things on. People only know of the ark because of the story, it doesn't exist anywhere else. It's like all flood mythology (which I notice you chopped out that qualifying word again for no reason). We shouldn't mention Noah in this article, the animals, god, water, rain etc then if this is purely about the ark. You're making such a bizarre bound on what this article is about. NathanLee (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there enough water on the planet to cover whole surface?

I think I saw an estimate that all ice on the poles, if melted, would raise sea level for 80 meters or so, certainly not enough to cover whole planet and smother all life. If it is true then maybe it can be mentioned in main article, somewhere near section about practicality of ark itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.116.147.65 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the current flood models in circulation among creationary geologists has the earth being impacted by a 'storm' of hundreds of asteroids striking the earth (much like comet Shoemaker-levy 9) for a period of 40 to 150 days. Impact tsunami would sweep ashore hundreds to thousands of meters high inundating the continents far inland. There would be so many impact tsunami in a short time that water would not be able to drain off before more tsunami would bring more water onto the continents.

The highest elevation of the pre-flood continents is proposed to be about 2000 meters high with most of the gain in elevation being gradual. Most of the imparted kinetic energy of the asteroids would stimulate Catastrophic Plate Tectonics during which the continents move to the positions they now inhabit and causing massive orogenetic activity pushing mountains up to the extreme heights that now exist.

It is estimated that moving 1000 feet deep of water onto the entire gradual slope of the pre-flood continents would lower the surface level of the 14000 foot deep oceans by a mere 300 feet. After the asteroid 'storm' ends, the agitated waters would then drain off the rearranged and reshaped continents during the latter part of the Flood.

So is there enough water on earth to flood the continents during an asteroid impact storm caused catastrophe? Yes.

I realize that most evolutionary geologists (of which there are none among the editors here) will reject such a model. And I know that it will never make it to this or the Flood Geology WP pages, because it is a creationary model and therefor automatically expunged as fringe and POV. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)